You’re likely thinking of this quote from a 1981 BBC interview in the series The Pleasure of Finding Things Out:
“I have a friend who’s an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don’t agree with very well. He’ll hold up a flower and say, ‘Look how beautiful it is,’ and I’ll agree. Then he says, ‘I as an artist can see how beautiful this is, but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing.’
I think he’s kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe. Although I may not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is … I can appreciate the beauty of a flower.
At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it’s not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there’s also beauty at a smaller dimension.
The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting — it means that insects can see the color.
It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds.
after reading a bunch of the books about him, i started noticing a pattern; he needs a butt to every joke. like, in isolation this quote is good but when you look at how he talked about people in general you realise that he always has to belittle someone to make his point. the artist friend is “nutty” because he has a difference of opinion, and richard can of course appreciate the beauty same as him, you don’t need a degree for that. and he does that constantly. it rubs me the wrong way.
same with his propensity for rule-breaking, he did it even though nobody but him thought he was entertaining. he was asked repeatedly to stop and he didn’t. he pissed people off who were just doing their jobs.
Yeah, if I noticed that pattern (I only know the one quote and was hoping the dig was just awkward) I’d be put off, too. Eww. I do like most of the quote, though.
It’s a pretty easy way to respond to being put down for being perceived to be smarter. When I was a middle schooler, I felt that way. I was in the advanced programs (btw. Still riding that high :) and certainly had a very “you’re just too dumb to see it like me” reactionary phase. I did grow up, though, lol. I realized Im also too dumb to see it any particularly special way.
I took way too many words to say that I think having a better understanding of the world is better and not worse.
oh i fully agree and understand the perspective. i also agree with the point feynman was making in the quote (otherwise i wouldn’t have brought it up obviously) and i think he may have been misrepresented a bit in that most of his quotable and memorable stuff (as printed in books about him) is of the more… i-am-so-smart kind.
if you have about three hoursohgeez to spare, i recommend angela collier’s video on the books about him.
what’s that feynman quote about science making things more beautiful?
You’re likely thinking of this quote from a 1981 BBC interview in the series The Pleasure of Finding Things Out:
“I have a friend who’s an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don’t agree with very well. He’ll hold up a flower and say, ‘Look how beautiful it is,’ and I’ll agree. Then he says, ‘I as an artist can see how beautiful this is, but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing.’
I think he’s kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe. Although I may not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is … I can appreciate the beauty of a flower.
At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it’s not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there’s also beauty at a smaller dimension.
The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting — it means that insects can see the color.
It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds.
I don’t understand how it subtracts.”
oof, that’s a lot more fart-huffing than i remember it.
then call me high on Feynman’s fumes lmao
after reading a bunch of the books about him, i started noticing a pattern; he needs a butt to every joke. like, in isolation this quote is good but when you look at how he talked about people in general you realise that he always has to belittle someone to make his point. the artist friend is “nutty” because he has a difference of opinion, and richard can of course appreciate the beauty same as him, you don’t need a degree for that. and he does that constantly. it rubs me the wrong way.
same with his propensity for rule-breaking, he did it even though nobody but him thought he was entertaining. he was asked repeatedly to stop and he didn’t. he pissed people off who were just doing their jobs.
Yeah, if I noticed that pattern (I only know the one quote and was hoping the dig was just awkward) I’d be put off, too. Eww. I do like most of the quote, though.
It’s a pretty easy way to respond to being put down for being perceived to be smarter. When I was a middle schooler, I felt that way. I was in the advanced programs (btw. Still riding that high :) and certainly had a very “you’re just too dumb to see it like me” reactionary phase. I did grow up, though, lol. I realized Im also too dumb to see it any particularly special way.
I took way too many words to say that I think having a better understanding of the world is better and not worse.
oh i fully agree and understand the perspective. i also agree with the point feynman was making in the quote (otherwise i wouldn’t have brought it up obviously) and i think he may have been misrepresented a bit in that most of his quotable and memorable stuff (as printed in books about him) is of the more… i-am-so-smart kind.
if you have about three hours oh geez to spare, i recommend angela collier’s video on the books about him.
Richard Feynman: The Beauty of the Flower.